Quick Links

Savannah Harbor Expansion Project needs true alternatives analysis

Posted: March 12, 2011 - 8:15pm

Press coverage has made much of divisions between Georgia and South Carolina with respect to the proposed Savannah Harbor dredging. The undersigned organizations are united across our two states in our concerns over this proposed deepening – and the serious risks it poses to the Savannah River. We recognize the importance of protecting the precious and limited freshwater resources that our states share.

The Corps proposal to deepen 38 miles of the Savannah Harbor to a 48-foot depth would involve significant adverse impacts to resources of national significance and of great value to both South Carolina and Georgia. For the reasons described below, before proceeding with this project, we believe the Corps must conduct a true alternatives analysis to determine if this is indeed the most cost effective option for federal government investment, with the fewest impacts on the environment. Failure to undertake such a study is troubling, especially in these difficult economic times.

l Saltwater intrusion. Over time, repeated deepenings have caused saltwater from the Atlantic Ocean to flow further up the Savannah River than it did historically. This “intrusion” has seriously altered the area’s natural balance of saltwater and freshwater. This saltwater intrusion has resulted in a number of significant problems, including severe losses of tidal freshwater marshes, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified as the single most critical natural resource in the lower Savannah River. Tidal freshwater marsh within the Savannah River estuary has already been reduced from approximately 12,000 acres to about 3,300 acres due to previous deepenings, and the majority of remaining freshwater tidal marsh is found within the Refuge. This proposal would impact as many as 1,212 acres of freshwater tidal wetlands (the Corps estimates this number will be reduced to 337 acres if the proposed re-plumbing of the estuary works).

l Degradation of water quality. Successive deepenings have also contributed to the reduction of dissolved oxygen levels to critically low levels on the river’s bottom. Dissolved oxygen declines imperil aquatic species while channel maintenance and deepenings directly destroy and disrupt wildlife habitat through dredging and the placement of millions of cubic yards of dredged spoil. To compensate for worsening the existing dissolved oxygen impairment, the Corps has proposed the use of a mechanical oxygen injection system to aerate the river. Such a system is unproven in an estuarine system like the Savannah and even if it would work as a technical matter, the proposal fails to include funding to ensure it will work indefinitely. This proposal also threatens to contaminate groundwater supplies by increasing salinity and reducing the thickness of the confining layer separating the bottom of the Savannah River and the Upper Floridan aquifer thereby facilitating saltwater intrusion into the aquifer under the navigation channel.

l Contamination of drinking water. Allowing larger volumes of saltwater to move further upstream will also degrade the city of Savannah’s municipal and industrial water intake on Abercorn Creek, a tributary of the river. In fact, the officials responsible for overseeing the city of Savannah’s water supply have warned that the Corps’ studies released to the public are misleading and that saltwater intrusion from the project will lead to increased corrosivity, which will ultimately result in increases in lead and copper in Savannah’s drinking water supplies. A new $40 million water intake system might address the issue, but no funds are allocated for such a facility.

l Harm to wildlife. Other natural resources threatened by the project include shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, and striped bass. In addition, the project threatens to harm other federally-listed species, such as North Atlantic right whales, sea turtles and manatees.

In light of the extensive negative effects associated with this project, we are troubled by the recently released studies by the Corps.

l A central assumption underlying the Corps’ recently released studies is that the growth in container volume will be exactly the same, whether or not this deepening occurs.

If this assumption is correct then (1) the overwhelming public message that this project is “do or die” for the future economic health of our region is false (2) If there is no additional port business, but shipping costs are lowered by using larger ships (as the Corps claims) there is no evidence that reducing these costs will benefit the American public. It seems likely that such savings will favor foreign businesses more than domestic ones. If so, the project could actually worsen U.S. trade imbalance, which hurts our economy and employment. Given these implications, we cannot justify spending over $600 million in public funds while endangering natural resources of national significance.

l If this assumption is incorrect, and the deepening will cause container volume to grow at Garden City, the Corps has undermined its economic analyses and biased the environmental studies by failing to evaluate the true extent of the proposal’s impact. For example, the Corps has declined to examine how increased shipping traffic (including landside trucking) will affect air quality in the greater Savannah area based on the assumption that this proposal will result in fewer (yet larger) ships calling on the port. If this assumption is incorrect and ship traffic does increase, then the Corps’ studies are fundamentally flawed.

l Substantial concerns have been raised regarding the failure of the proposed channel as designed to safely accommodate fully-loaded Post-Panamax ships, adding further doubt to the stated rationale for this project, especially when weighed against the substantial taxpayer cost and environmental impacts.

l And finally, the Corps has simply failed to consider, as federal law requires, a sufficient range of alternatives for accommodating the anticipated larger class of container ships and instead has arbitrarily limited its review of alternatives to different depths in the Savannah River. The Corps has studiously avoided asking perhaps the most important question in light of the limited availability of federal funds: whether or not this location represents the best cost benefit ratio among the options for port expansion in the Southeast region. Are there alternatives in the region that would achieve the same goal for less money and fewer environmental impacts? Until the Corps analyzes regional alternatives for accommodating the larger class of container vessels, it should not propose to sink $600 million into deepening a 38-mile segment of the Savannah River.

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.